MARION DELORIS CAMPBELL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Marion Campbell appealed the revocation of her probation, challenging the trial court's written order that revoked probation based on violations of conditions six and eight, when Campbell had only admitted to violating condition fifty-eight. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence but remanded for correction of the written revocation order to conform to the oral pronouncement and Campbell's actual plea.
The court affirmed Campbell's conviction and sentence but remanded the case to correct the scrivener's error in the written revocation order so that it would reflect only the violation of condition fifty-eight to which Campbell actually admitted, requiring deletion of the revocation findings for conditions six and eight.
[1] A trial court's written order revoking probation must accurately reflect the grounds upon which the defendant admitted to violating probation.
[2] A scrivener's error in a written revocation order, which does not mirror the court's oral pronouncement or the defendant's admissions, requires remand for correction.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a trial court's order reflecting different findings than the oral pronouncement could be a harmless clerical error when other conditions were sufficient basis for violation”
Establishes that discrepancies between oral pronouncement and written order may constitute harmless clerical error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarion Campbell was on probation and admitted to violating condition fifty-eight by failing to complete community service hours. However, Campbell did…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Written Order cases and more on FLexlaw
SAWAYA, J.
Marion Campbell appeals the order entered by the trial court, which revoked her probation based on her admission that she violated condition fifty-eight by failing to complete community service hours. Notably, Campbell did not admit that she violated condition eight (requiring compliance with the probation officer’s instructions) and condition six (requiring Campbell refrain from illegal drug use). Nonetheless, in the written order, the court revoked Campbell’s probation based on its finding that she had violated conditions six and eight, but oddly did not find Campbell had violated condition fifty-eight. The court sentenced Campbell to five years in the Department of Corrections.
We remand this case to the trial court to correct the scrivener’s error in the written order so that it mirrors the court’s acceptance of Campbell’s plea based solely on a violation of condition fifty-eight. The revocation based on the two grounds to which Campbell did not submit a plea must be deleted. See Landry v. State, 380 So. 2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (finding that a trial court’s order reflecting different findings than the oral pronouncement could be a harmless clerical error when other conditions were sufficient basis for violation); see also Hayes v. State, 927 So. 2d 15, 16 (Fla. 2d DCA) (affirming the conviction and sentence but remanding for entry of a corrected revocation order; noting that defendant need not be present on remand when the amended revocation order is entered), review dismissed, 936 So. 2d 565 (Fla.2006); Turner v. State, 873 So. 2d 480, 480-81 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (remanding to conform the order to the oral pronouncement). We affirm the conviction and sentence but remand for entry of a corrected revocation order. AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
PALMER, C.J. and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richards v. State, 992 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…wever, with instructions that the trial court enter a written order, consistent with its oral finding, specifying which probation condition(s) Appellant violated. Appellant need not be present when the order is entered. See, e.g., Campbell v. State, 972 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (affirming order revoking probation but remanding for court to correct order to show correct ground for revocation); Hayes v. State, 927 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (affirming conviction and sentence but remanding for corrected…
-
Robbins v. State, 54 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…gation that the appellant violated condition five. Thus, we affirm the appellant’s convictions and sentences, but remand for entry of a corrected revocation order which omits reference to a violation of condition five.2 See, e.g., Campbell v. State, 972 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (affirming order revoking probation but remanding for court to correct order to show correct ground for revocation). AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions to enter a corrected revocation order. KAHN, PADOVANO, and CLARK, JJ.,…
-
Adkins v. State, 74 So. 3d 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…of his community control. Adkins contends that the trial court failed to make the required specific findings as to the provisions of his community control that were violated. See Young v. State, 4 So. 3d 1265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Campbell v. State, 972 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Patt v. State, 876 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The State concedes error. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the trial court to make specific findings as to which provisions of community control were violated by Adkins.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Turner v. State, 873 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Lewis v. State, 380 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Landry v. State, 380 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Vixamar v. State, 927 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Sandrilla Hayes v. State, 927 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)